Debian dated? [was: Re: Announcement from www.kubuntu.de]

[Michael M.]

Daniel Carrera wrote:
> Michael M. wrote:
>> But Debian's testing and unstable branches are as up-to-date as any 
>> distro,
> But they aren't "supported". Ask the Debian guys.
What does this mean, not "supported"?  What kind of support do you get 
with Debian's stable branch that you don't get with Debian's testing 
branch?  There's no help desk to call, for either.  Both get security 
updates.  Both are installable by the network install method from 
downloadable .iso's.  The same resources -- mailing lists, web forums, 
etc. -- are available no matter which you're using.  You can file bug 
reports for both, and the developers will pay attention.  I don't 
understand the concept as you're applying it here.  Debian, like Ubuntu, 
is largely community-supported.  Community support is what the community 
makes of it.
> Well, I used to be a Debian user, and I couldn't believe how dated it 
> was. So I was always using Sid.
As am I, currently, though mostly I have used testing.  Neither have 
given me any problems.
> Comparing any two distros is never "apples-to-apples" then. Each 
> distro makes different choices. Debian goes for stability and broad 
> architecture support, and the consequence of that is ancient software. 
> It's a tradeoff.
Indeed.  The reason that I'm using Debian more than Ubuntu Breezy these 
days is because Debian is more up-to-date.  When Dapper is released, I 
may use Dapper more for a while, but it will be only a matter of time 
before Debian testing catches up then passes Dapper the way it has 
passed Breezy.  And Debian unstable will be more-or-less contemporary 
with Dapper from the get-go.  The systems are similar enough that 
switching between them is pretty easy -- the biggest difference in terms 
of day-to-day usage being sudo vs. su.  (Yeah, I could install sudo in 
Debian, but I've never bothered.  Actually, I think I like that they are 
different -- it makes it easier for me to remember where I am!)  The 
vast majority of the OS and desktop configurations I like to use apply 
equally well in both systems. 

The trade-off for me runs the opposite direction than you're implying it 
runs.  It's Debian that provides the more up-to-date userland, not 
Ubuntu.  Ubuntu has the benefit of being "frozen" into releases, like 
Debian's stable releases, but with a more aggressive release cycle 
(until recently, every six months) than Debian's releases.  It also has 
the drawback of being frozen, like Debian stable, so that even with a 
more aggressive release cycle, it still lacks newer software available 
in Debian's testing or unstable branches, which are always receiving 
updates.  So I try to make the strengths and drawbacks of each OS work 
to my benefit by keeping them both around and taking advantage of the 
trade-offs each one makes.

-- 
Michael M. ++ Portland, OR ++ USA
"No live organism can continue for long to exist sanely under conditions of absolute reality; even larks and katydids are supposed, by some, to dream." --S. Jackson